Journalists who know nothing about tennis voicing vociferous opinions come June when they 'discover' the sport of tennis, people who call out when players are serving and the French crown when they keep going with the booing and jeering and hold up play.

I'm pretty sure the line judge called it, but it got lost in the noise from the crowd. It would appear Garner got confused in the moment. If you look at some fan videos it looks like the line judge makes the signal for 'long'.

You could well be right!My comms seemed to think it was someone in the crowd who called it,but I couldn't tell myself-and I've watched a few times now!I have to say though,I really didn't care who called it once the umpire ruled that the call was right-I was too busy being happy about the result

You could well be right!My comms seemed to think it was someone in the crowd who called it,but I couldn't tell myself-and I've watched a few times now!I have to say though,I really didn't care who called it once the umpire ruled that the call was right-I was too busy being happy about the result

Aye that's what Petchey and Fleming were suggesting at the time. Watching it book it seems ludicrous that the line judge wouldn't have seen it, it was way out. But with the crowd making noises at the same time it's understandable that the umpire didn't hear the call.

Aye that's what Petchey and Fleming were suggesting at the time. Watching it book it seems ludicrous that the line judge wouldn't have seen it, it was way out. But with the crowd making noises at the same time it's understandable that the umpire didn't hear the call.

That's interesting to hear you say that-I've watched the match a few times now,but each time (apart from the first time,lol!) I've been paying so much attention to trying to see if I could figure out who called it that I've never payed that much attention to the actual end of the point!Next time I must focus more,see how it comes across to me.That was one wonderful night,wasn't it?Well,actually it was a horribly stressful night!But all's well that ends with the win

They are calling the 90s a weak era now, in order to make Djokovic and co look better, same goes for people calling 2004-2007 a weak era, because Federer won everything. Tards of retired players like calling the current era weak. They say the Top 4 win everything because the rest of the field are all scrubs.

If you look back in history and not just in tennis, you will see historians describing certain periods in time as either weak or strong based on all the elements that existed in those time periods. And they are correct. Then there are eras that were very, very challenging - the Depression ere for example. Anyway, they do exist whether we like it or not. And not everyone is your everyday tard. Some can live beyond that and are able to make much more sensible arguments. For a start, the 90s shouldn't be lumped together as the 'weak era' as the start of 90s (until 1995) is arguably one of the toughest eras of all time. Same can't be said about the late 90s; however, none of the field still wasn't as weak - meaning - they had more than 2 players competing for the same title. On the other hand, the start of Federer's era is arguably the weakest (2003-2007) but the last few years of the same era can be argued as one of the strongest eras (since 2008) of all time.

Agreed that it is very difficult to argue across eras given different elements of things; however, we can take two eras and find out how the two top players fared against their main rival and rest of the field. This is not exactly an apple vs apple comparison but it's a fair ground to start with. Sampras, for example, in the first part of his ear won 7 Slams (1990-1995) and then won another 7 Slams in the 2nd part of the same - the supposedly weak era as you say. Federer won 13 Slams (2003-2008) in the first part of his era, whereas he won only 4 Slams in the 2nd part of his era, where the competition got tougher with the rise of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. And to a lesser extent, Del Potro, Tsogna, Soderling, Berdych etc. This means Sampras did much better when the challenge was much higher than Federer while Federer's case was just the opposite. Federer, of course, has another 3 years (2013-2015) left in him to equal Sampras' time on tour starting from his first win in 1990 (and Federer's first in 2003), so he does have a chance to prove things otherwise. Another factor that goes against Federer is of course is the Nadal factor. Nadal leads 5-0 over Federer since 2008 and overall 8-2 in GSs. Nadal is essentially the better player of the two and not only that, he should be the player of this decade. Most times, I'd say, we are looking at the wrong player and missing out the obvious.

Yeah, same here! I knew that the match was his once he got those MPs..

Would you believe it,I was still a bit afraid something would go wrong!I'm such a worrier,and I just wanted it for him so BADLY-I didn't dare to think it was over til it was over!

I remember nearly screaming when the umpire ruled that it had indeed been out though.I was trying to be super quiet,because everyone else in the house was asleep,and I'd been warned not to wake them-but in that moment it was very,very difficult to keep quiet.I was bouncing up and down where I sat lol!

Would you believe it,I was still a bit afraid something would go wrong!I'm such a worrier,and I just wanted it for him so BADLY-I didn't dare to think it was over til it was over!

I remember nearly screaming when the umpire ruled that it had indeed been out though.I was trying to be super quiet,because everyone else in the house was asleep,and I'd been warned not to wake them-but in that moment it was very,very difficult to keep quiet.I was bouncing up and down where I sat lol!

Just imagine my case... It was around 2:00 a.m back here,, my second night of chicken pox, I was down with fever but managed to wake up my mom and dad with my screaming and shrieking!

If you look back in history and not just in tennis, you will see historians describing certain periods in time as either weak or strong based on all the elements that existed in those time periods. And they are correct. Then there are eras that were very, very challenging - the Depression ere for example. Anyway, they do exist whether we like it or not. And not everyone is your everyday tard. Some can live beyond that and are able to make much more sensible arguments. For a start, the 90s shouldn't be lumped together as the 'weak era' as the start of 90s (until 1995) is arguably one of the toughest eras of all time. Same can't be said about the late 90s; however, none of the field still wasn't as weak - meaning - they had more than 2 players competing for the same title. On the other hand, the start of Federer's era is arguably the weakest (2003-2007) but the last few years of the same era can be argued as one of the strongest eras (since 2008) of all time.

Agreed that it is very difficult to argue across eras given different elements of things; however, we can take two eras and find out how the two top players fared against their main rival and rest of the field. This is not exactly an apple vs apple comparison but it's a fair ground to start with. Sampras, for example, in the first part of his ear won 7 Slams (1990-1995) and then won another 7 Slams in the 2nd part of the same - the supposedly weak era as you say. Federer won 13 Slams (2003-2008) in the first part of his era, whereas he won only 4 Slams in the 2nd part of his era, where the competition got tougher with the rise of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. And to a lesser extent, Del Potro, Tsogna, Soderling, Berdych etc. This means Sampras did much better when the challenge was much higher than Federer while Federer's case was just the opposite. Federer, of course, has another 3 years (2013-2015) left in him to equal Sampras' time on tour starting from his first win in 1990 (and Federer's first in 2003), so he does have a chance to prove things otherwise. Another factor that goes against Federer is of course is the Nadal factor. Nadal leads 5-0 over Federer since 2008 and overall 8-2 in GSs. Nadal is essentially the better player of the two and not only that, he should be the player of this decade. Most times, I'd say, we are looking at the wrong player and missing out the obvious.

No matter how good your arguments are, it's impossible to say whether or not the field now is weaker than it was 20 years ago or if the top players are just too good. Players age though and not many of them are as successful after approximately 600 ATP matches played. They decline at different rates of course. The mileage on their bodies takes its toll and if you couple that with other players improving/coming up of course their results are going to suffer. The thing is, can you say with certainty that Federer or Sampras weren't just too good while they were in their peak years? Exactly, you can't, so why even bother? I just find these discussions pretty annoying in general, which is why I listed the weak era thing in the first place.

I would like to put in the promotion of Federer as still being the headline draw for events, whenever i see an event where Fed is playing, like Indian Wells for example, his smug face is still the most pronounced while Andy and Djokovic (who is the world number one by the way tournament directors get a grip) are portrayed as supporting acts.

I would also put in websites who seem to portray Andy as still being the undercard in events

"On the men’s side, the field is led by World No. 1 Novak Djokovic (2008, 2011), defending champion and World No. 2 Roger Federer (2004-2006, 2012) and World No. 5 Rafael Nadal (2007, 2009), who account for eight of the last nine BNP Paribas Open titles. In addition, World No. 3 and 2012 US Open Champion Andy Murray"

I mean come on, it annoys me terribly.

When are tournaments going to wise up that Federer will stop playing in the foreseeable future and that his time is at an end and maybe it's in their best interest to start promoting other players and matchups as being more significant.

"On the men’s side, the field is led by World No. 1 Novak Djokovic (2008, 2011), defending champion and World No. 2 Roger Federer (2004-2006, 2012) and World No. 5 Rafael Nadal (2007, 2009), who account for eight of the last nine BNP Paribas Open titles. In addition, World No. 3 and 2012 US Open Champion Andy Murray"

I mean come on, it annoys me terribly.

When are tournaments going to wise up that Federer will stop playing in the foreseeable future and that his time is at an end and maybe it's in their best interest to start promoting other players and matchups as being more significant.

Well tbf, in that particular tournament, he has lost in R2 (Bye in R1) in the last 2 years and R3 in 2010 and has also never won the title while the others have all won it at least twice.

Well tbf, in that particular tournament, he has lost in R2 (Bye in R1) in the last 2 years and R3 in 2010 and has also never won the title while the others have all won it at least twice.

Oh cmon that really isn't a valid argument If Andy had won IW for the last 5 years, he would still be promoted behind Federer and Nadal, likewise if Federer had been knocked out of every first round for the last 5 years he would still be promoted higher than Andy, and even if Andy was number 2 in the world, Federer and Nadal would be promoted higher.

If you think about it, if both Federer and Nadal were outside the top ten they most likely would be promoted higher, this is my issue.... The tennis watching community seems to have lately swung towards the Fedal era being over and the new boys in town Murray and Djoko taking their place, but tennis tournaments around the world have not cottoned onto this fact, even journalists have stated that they think this is where the future of tennis lies, heck i even saw a quote on a forum the other day calling this the Muzzovic era

The USTA should be in there for a few reasons. 1) Piss poor scheduling at the US Open. 2) Not training their talents properly, they're as bad as the LTA, I don't see an American winning a slam for a long time. 3) Not giving the legendary Donald Young the tools he needed to succeed at pro level, after his successful junior career.